Checked G-G and it is indeed a belter. In a slightly different genre. Jack's is an actual trick, where clearly Black essayed the pointless move ...Rg6+ simply in the hope that a (presumably time-troubled) White would seize the opportunity to exchange rooks, only to find he was exchanging more of his own than he'd hoped. G-G is another type, where Black had to consider the position carefully and take advantage of hidden study-like possibilities in order to blunder as he did. Also not strictly I think a WMOTB, since cruder ways of putting material en prise were also possible.

@hypertroll - just looked up Graham - Lund and it's another good one, threatening mate but unfortunately taking away the King's escape square. At least White was winning that one anyway, just not quite as quickly!

I love this blog. I'm always a few steps behind, but it's aspirational for me!

What frustrates me is that, compared to, when I was 17, I understand chess so much better but I play it so much worse. (Not that I was any good then either, but I don't think I missed so many things during a game.)

Going back to the G-G game, I could claim a personal interest as it was a contributor to the team I play for, being relegated on board count.

I had spotted that Kf7 wasn't playable, but spectators always see the board better than players. According to the computer engines, it was possible to double Rooks on the h7 to a7 line. If White then snatches the a3 pawn, then Ra7 is played which will equalise by taking the a2 pawn.

I thought also that White had a valid claim for a win on time at move forty. Black had played move 40 and the flag display came up along with an indication that 50 minutes (or was it 49 minutes?) remained.

It's an empirical practical rule, that if there are cheapos and tricks in the position, that spectators, presuming they are within spitting distance of the players in terms of ability to analyse and judgement can spot the tricks better than the players. If there's reasoning behind it, it would be because spectators start from a zero base of not knowing who is winning. Players on the other hand can be absolutely confident they are winning regardless of the position on the board.

Yeah, but on the other hand it's not unusual to point out a variation to a player after ta game, only for the player to then tell you what's wrong with it. Sitting at the board concentrating on the game and learning about the position can be a serious advantage to coming to a position cold.

There was a clear "worst move on the board" at the end of Terry v Lauterbach, Oxford v Barbican, round nine of 4NCL. White seems to have understood that he only needed to eliminate Black's g pawn to hold a draw. Indeed 89 h5 g5 90 Nh3 would have sufficed (because of 90...Ke4 91 Nxg5!). But instead ...